User talk:LaFemmeMSketeer

References

We at Wikipedia love evidence-based medicine. Please cite high-quality reliable sources. We typically use review articles, major textbooks and position statements of national or international organizations. A list of resources to help edit such articles can be found here. The edit box has a build in citation tool to easily format references based on the PMID or ISBN. WP:MEDHOW walks through editing step by step. We also provide style advice about the structure and content of medicine-related encyclopedia articles. The welcome page is another good place to learn about editing the encyclopedia. If you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a note. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:06, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Remove high quality resource and replacing them with low quality ones

You replaced

Stone K (March 2012). "Medical device conflict of interest in the CCSVI debate". Annals of Neurology. 71 (3): A6–8. doi:10.1002/ana.23560. PMID 22451214.

with

http://www.healthcareglobal.com/tech/1803/Google-Biogen-Idec-Unite-to-Bring-New-Research-to-Multiple-Sclerosis

Do not do this. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:21, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Copy and pasting

We run "copy and paste" detection software on new edits. One of your edits appear to be infringing on someone else's copyright. We at Wikipedia usually require paraphrasing. If you own the copyright to this material please send permission for release under a CC BY SA license to permissions-en@wikimedia.org per WP:CONSENT. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:22, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You added

"Under the auspices of the International Society for Neurovascular Disease (ISNVD), more than 60 neurology, radiology, vascular surgery, and interventional radiology experts participated in workshops over four years and contributed to the development of standardized noninvasive and invasive imaging protocols for the detection of extracranial venous abnormalities indicative of CCSVI. The MR imaging and intravascular US protocols described by ISNVD describes refined color Doppler US and CV protocols. It also emphasizes the need for the use of for noninvasive and invasive multimodal imaging to diagnose adequately and monitor extracranial venous abnormalities indicative of CCSVI for open-label or double-blinded, randomized, controlled studies."

Ref says

Under the auspices of the International Society for Neurovascular Disease (ISNVD), four expert panel committees were created from the ISNVD membership between 2011 and 2012 to determine and standardize noninvasive and invasive imaging protocols for detection of extracranial venous abnormalities indicative of chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency (CCSVI). The committees created working groups on color Doppler ultrasound (US), magnetic resonance (MR) imaging, catheter venography (CV), and intravascular US. Each group organized a workshop focused on its assigned imaging modality. Non–ISNVD members from other societies were invited to contribute to the various workshops. More than 60 neurology, radiology, vascular surgery, and interventional radiology experts participated in these workshops and contributed to the development of standardized noninvasive and invasive imaging protocols for the detection of extracranial venous abnormalities indicative of CCSVI. This ISNVD position statement presents the MR imaging and intravascular US protocols for the first time and describes refined color Doppler US and CV protocols. It also emphasizes the need for the use of for noninvasive and invasive multimodal imaging to diagnose adequately and monitor extracranial venous abnormalities indicative of CCSVI for open-label or double-blinded, randomized, controlled studies

The license is CC BY NC ND which is not compatible with Wikipedia. Also we need to summarize. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:27, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Summary

I have summarized it here in the research section [1] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:32, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

February 2015

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:22, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]